BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 227/2009 Dated: 30..12..2009 Complainant: Bhaskaran. V., Bhaskara, T.C.27/867, Athani Lane, Vanchiyoor – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Vettoor S. Prakash) Opposite party:
DHL Express India (P) Ltd., represented by the Managing Director, T.C.9/684 (5/7), Gangothri Buildings, Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 30..11..2009, the Forum on 30..12..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
Facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had purchased a Veena worth Rs.18,450/- on 14/8/2008 to be sent to one Dr. B. Resmi Patel at U.K. For that the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party had assured that the parcel will be sent to U.K without any loss or damage. The complainant purchased a wooden box worth Rs. 5,000/- and the wooden box and the Veena were taken by the opposite party from the residence of the complainant and was packed by them so as to avoid any type of damage during transit. The opposite party received Rs. 27,707/- from the complainant as Shipment Airway charges on 21/5/2009 and issued receipt for the same and assured that they will take insurance for the articles. The shipment was received by the party at U.K on 27/5/2009 in a dilapidated condition and the top and string of the Veena were in a broken condition and it was totally damaged and became worthless and is not possible for use. The damage was happened due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, thereby the complainant sustained a very huge loss. Though the defects were brought to the knowledge of the opposite party, there was no positive response from their side. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.
2. The opposite party remains ex-parte.
3. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P4. Complainant has not been cross examined hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The following issues arise for consideration:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The purchase of the musical instrument in dispute is proved by Ext. P1. As per it, the value of the same is Rs.18,450/-. Ext. P2 is the receipt, issued by the opposite party on 21/5/2009, for Rs.27,707/-. The shipment Air Way bill attached to Ext. P1 proves that complainant had sent the consignment to Dr. B. Resmi Patel. According to the complainant, the consignment was received by the party in a damaged condition. The top and string of the Veena were in a broken condition. Ext. P4 goes to prove that Dr. Resmi Patel had given Veena for repair – Broken Fret board, broken neck, broken fret board setting, full Veena adjustment and an amount of 250/- is seen collected from her for the same.
6. The opposite party never turned up to deny the allegations levelled against them. Inspite of acceptance of notice from the Forum, opposite party did not file their version or contest the case, so the opposite party has been set ex-parte. Moreover as per Ext.P3 lawyer's notice, it is evident that, the opposite party was informed about the damage to the musical instrument, as the postal acknowledgment card and receipt prove the acceptance of the notice by the opposite party on 19/6/2009.
7. In the above circumstance, as there is no denial from the side of the opposite party, we are left with no other option than to accept the complaint. The opposite party has never turned up to enlighten the Forum whether the consignment note has been signed by the complainant or not. In the absence of any evidence by the opposite party to show that the terms and conditions printed overleaf were shown to the consignor, the liability of the opposite party cannot be limited as mentioned in the airway bill.
8. From the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case. The act of the opposite party in delivering the consignment in a damaged condition amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant has to be compensated. The complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs.27,707/- along with repair charge of Rs.22,500/-. There is no record to show that complainant had incurred Rs. 5,000/- towards packing charge, hence this amount is not allowable. Since the Veena has been repaired and the same being in possession of Dr. Resmi Patel at U.K, we do not order refund of the value of Veena since on refund of the value, the complainant will have to return the Veena to the opposite party which will be another expenditure to the complainant. The complainant is found entitled for a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall refund Rs. 50, 207/- along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of the order till realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of December, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER. C.C.No. 227/2009 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Original cash bill invoice No.EA 1341 dated 14/08/08 submitted by complainant. P2 : Original receipt No.149653 dated 21/05/2008 issued by opposite party. P3 : Acknowledgment card addressed to opposite party dated 19/6/2009. P4 : Photocopy of repairing bill
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT.
| 
